What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[Skallagrimson]

i would like the following options (that can be shut-off for traditionalists)

Video Advisers Bring back the cheesy councillors from Civ 2. They were amusing.

Let's do lunch!

Ranged Combat Some increased use of ranged combat for artillery seems reasonable.

Artillery ought to behave like other bombardment units such as ships and aircraft, except with a one tile range. It's absolutely ridiculous that civ makes a cannon explode and die if it fires a shot and misses. But then there's a lot about civ that's ridiculous.

Weather: rain, snow, drought, storms - effecting movement, unit maintenance, improvement usefulness, defense/offense strength

Seasons: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter - affecting weather.

1 turn is usually a multiple number of years, which itself is a *PROBLEM*. 20 turns to build a scout when each turn is 40 years, you know what, I think even George W. Bush can organize resources to send some idiot out into the woods with a hatchet in less than 400 years.

In-game Leaders: For example, a Lincoln leader inhabiting Washington as an actual unit. Lincoln would be a non-combat unit useful for providing order, production bonuses, happiness, etc. in the city he was in, or national benefits if in the capitol. Nothing outrageously unbalancing though. Enemy assassins' being the only one capable of attacking the leader and killing him would provide some unrest, perhaps nationally.

I like that idea. N turns of anarchy depending on the civic the civ is in:

Universal Sufferage: 1 turn
Representation: 2 turns
Hereditary Rule: 3 turns
Police State: 4 turns
Despotism: 5 turns

 

[rysmiel]

We chose a leader at the game's start and we see rival leaders when we negotiate, but they're mostly absent as a presence in the game. We see their effects but little else.

Am I the leader of the civ or is Lincoln? Am I playing Lincoln? Am I Lincoln's lieutenant? His name is on the paycheck but I'm cashing 'em.

Which is why I could sympathise with removing leaders altogether. You're not actually playing Lincoln; you are playing the American civilisation.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, I disagree that leaders should be removed. They're half the fun. But perhaps the leaders you play against should have ever so slightly more character based personalities.

 

[exhile]

I think leaders for all civilizations ought to change during each era. It would be a good history lesson for those of us who don't know who the significant leader was during that time in age for a particular civ. 5 leaders for the main 18 civs isn't much and the attention would be to the civ, not the leader.

 

[warpstorm]

I think leaders for all civilizations ought to change during each era. It would be a good history lesson for those of us who don't know who the significant leader was during that time in age for a particular civ. 5 leaders for the main 18 civs isn't much and the attention would be to the civ, not the leader.

What would you do for those Civs who weren't really in existance during an era?

 

[exhile]

What would you do for those Civs who weren't really in existance during an era?

Well, I guess having a leader to represent an era of that civilization would be satisfactory. For example, a leader that signifies the beginning of that civ, the middle era and a leader that represents the final technological advancement of an era.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Let's do lunch!

Absolutely! Bring back the High Council, in different garb and saying different things during different ages. I loved them. And please bring back the throne room too! Both optional, of course.

 

[Camikaze]

I only played a limited amount of Civ2, but the throne room and video advisors are two of the things I really enjoyed. Bring them back!

 

[vanderbylr]

What would you do for those Civs who weren't really in existance during an era?

Have a 5 or so ages and a few regions all over the world. For example in Italy you can pick some Etruscan king, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine maybe, the king of Naples or duke of Milan or something like that, Victor Emmanuel II or Mussolini.
Or for areas like central america you could pick some pre-aztec leader, Montezuma, a spanish viceroy of new spain or a leader of Mexico.

 

[xXDonovanXx]

Make Civil Wars

 

[Camikaze]

Have a 5 or so ages and a few regions all over the world. For example in Italy you can pick some Etruscan king, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine maybe, the king of Naples or duke of Milan or something like that, Victor Emmanuel II or Mussolini.
Or for areas like central america you could pick some pre-aztec leader, Montezuma, a spanish viceroy of new spain or a leader of Mexico.

That would hardly make sense unless you were playing on an Earth map. I mean, what is the point of having geographically correct fill-ins if America can be next to Mongolia anyway?

 

[OldRED]

I didn't see anyone mention multi screen support, like having the map on one side and support screens come up on the other.

 

[OldRED]

Would like to see some way of knowing where a city was (above/below/right/left) in respect to the Capital, or longitude/latitude in respect to the map.

 

[bob rulz]

second idea... Immigration

• Throughout history immigration has been an issue. Take a look at the world's newest nation, Kosovo, a country founded on immigrant Albanians. How come is this not implemented in the game?
  
• Maybe theres been a recent conquest, and a captured city's population wants to return to it's original country, so it immigrates there
  
• Border City, Population from another Country just joins the border city, happens alot throughout history, makes sense. Infact it's sorta already implemented in the game with culture.
  
• Soldiers capture a city, and there lonely have no homes etc. so they settled down in the new city that has been captured.
  
• The Romans made a Colony, but it's pretty underpopulated, the Roman citizens, seeking land, wealth, etc. immigrate to the new world.
  
• Another conquests. i've captured a city, but it's filled with enemy population, i "deport" the population back to there homeland.
  
• I've captured a city, but it's fileld with enemy population, i turn the population into slaves and send them to work in other cities as slaves. there ancestors settle down in there new city.
  
• Rome captured a city, but it's filled with Russian population. Rome bring some romans from other cities to make my new city more "Roman"
  
• My empire/city is so poor/backwards/horrible living conditions/unhappy/low life expectancy/seek better paying jobs/etc so i'm immigrating to another empire/city.
  
• i made a new city, and i need workers in the new city, so i'm sending citizens there to work.
  
• New immigrants can bring a new religion with them, as well as there culture.
  
• if to much immigrants are in a small area, civil war may be about! which can lead to cities becoming part of the original immigrants country!
  
• There could be a feature where you can control where you want immigrants to go.
  
• Illegal immigration can be implemented into the game, and can cause unhappiness etc.
  
• Finally a way to include Ethnic Cleansing! (which will probably create tons of unhappiness.
  
• maybe a map that can show you immigration paterns throughout the world?
  

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on my ideas

I completely agree with the idea of immigration. It's a feature I really wish they would have added in Civilization IV. I don't agree with all of these ideas but it's certainly a good start.

I don't think you should have complete control over how you can re-distribute your citizens. I think it should be a more automated system. Immigration routes would work like trade routes - for example, people could only immigrate to cities connected along the road network, or to harbors and airports.

I think a more complex economic model should be implemented, but I won't worry about the details of that. Citizens within your empire should emigrate from one city in your empire to a more privileged city (larger cities, wealther cities, and cities with more culture). It shouldn't be any sort of drastic change, just an occasional citizen every now and then. Also, they should absolutely be able to immigrate to other countries if economic or political conditions are bad enough. Immigrants arriving in a wealthier country, or a country with more freedoms, would first immigrate to major port cities (or border cities), then proliferate throughout the empire to larger cities. This kind of major immigration should really only begin in the Industrial Age era. Some exchange could occur in border cities, although again that would accelerate during the industrial age. Obviously you should know when a significant exodus begins, such as "poor economic conditions in your country has caused some of your citizens to emigrate to X country!" Finally, in war, people should flee from threatened cities to cities further inland. Not only would this cause you to keep more of your population, it would also have negative affects, perhaps overwhelming other cities in your empire if it's a large city. This is what actually occurs during war. The enemy, however, could cut off trade routes, therefore preventing citizens from fleeing.

I don't think you should have control over where specific immigrants go, but you should have some control over immigration. For example, when taking conquered cities, you could choose to stop the flow of foreign ethnicities in your country - they would be unhappier, but this could keep your core cities "pure". I think that until universal suffrage, minorities should be naturally less happy than your main ethnicity. Preventing minorities from immigrating throughout your empire would keep this unhappiness from spreading to your other cities. Eventually, your own people would settle these conquered cities. Also, you could choose to completely close your borders, therefore preventing immigrants from other countries from entering yours. You could also choose to prevent emigration from your country.

You should be able to know how other countries are treating your citizens. You should be informed when certain actions are taken against members of your ethnicity in other countries and respond accordingly (and you should also be able to see exactly how many of your own citizens are in other countries). The computer would also know how they're treating their citizens, so you should know how they treat yours. This could obviously hurt your relations with certain countries. However, if you treat them well, it would improve relations with them.

Finally, you should be able to participate in ethnic cleansing. Completely cleansing a city of a certain ethnicity would significantly hurt your relations with that country (and possibly incite war if relations are already bad, or if you get carried away), but of course it would keep your empire "pure", which would have certain gameplay benefits (at least early in the game). I also think that ethnicities should "mix" over time. For example, if I'm American and I conquer France, over time we could have some citizens that are half-French, half-American. Mixing would be minimal early on but could accelerate as time goes on, particularly when you adopt universal suffrage.

All of this should apply to religion as well. There should be religious cleansing. People could immigrate to other civs that are more favorable to their religion. Finally, each citizen, in addition to being of a certain ethnicity, could also have a specific religion attached to them (instead of each city just having certain religions, each citizen within that city should be of a certain religion). This would allow for religious conversions to take place as well, although the success of conversion would be mixed and would case unhappiness among people of the religion(s) you're trying to convert. Natural conversion should also occur depending on what you choose to make your state religion.

And one last point...atheism should appear late in the game (perhaps when "free religion" or its equivalent is adopted). You should also theoretically be able to adopt Atheism as your state "religion", at least once certain conditions are met. I'm not sure what affects that atheism should have on the game, or whether it should just literally be a lack of religion.

Sorry for the major tl;dr...this is just something I've thought a lot about. I think immigration would be a great addition (and religion and ethnicity apply a lot to that so I gave my thoughts on those too).

 

[bob rulz]

Okay, now for some other thoughts I have (in an additional post so my other one isn't even longer )

Cities
-Upgradeable buildings. Certain buildings should be able to be "upgraded" to other types, for additional bonuses.
-More buildings should go obsolete - you would lose the bonuses, but it would become a tourist attraction, therefore generating additional income for you.
-Once a city reaches a certain size, it could begin to "spill over" into surrounding terrain. These "suburbs" could produce additional income and production and could also allow for constructing additional types of certain improvements (but not all). Towns could also be absorbed by expanding cities.

-Ideas for new city improvements:
(some of these exist as unique buildings already, but I don't think they should be):
-Casino
-Dam
-Mall
-Museum
-Sewer system
-Ski resort
-Stadium
-Stock exchange
-Trading post

Land/Terrain
-NO MORE CITIES ON JUNGLE AND TUNDRA. Or at the very least, not until late in the game.
-Bridges (only over 1 tile of water)
-Canals. These could be built through single tiles of land between 2 oceans. The team that controls the canal could either have the option of closing it off, not allowing other teams to pass through it, or they could tax it and make major amounts of money (it would provide additional commerce just for existing, but you could also get revenue for each ship of another nation that passes through).
-Canals and bridges would both be available late in the game, perhaps with some new late-game technology (advanced engineering?).
-Multiple mountain levels. Low, high, and "peak". Peaks would be like the tallest, most monumental mountains on Earth. They would be impassible to everything. High mountains - you can't pass them until you build a road on them. Low mountains would be like mountains are now.
-Some terrain could generate tourist income. It would be randomly determined (and not unbalanced in anybody's favor), although certain terrain (such as forests or mountains) would be more likely to generate it. It would be a modest boost to income at first...more if you build a road to it. Certain advances and improvements later could generate even more income.
-National parks. Once you discover ecology (or its equivalent), you could designate certain areas national parks, generating even more revenue, but preventing any additional development from occurring.
-Elevation - have several different elevation levels (maybe 3 - then above that is hills, then mountains). Units defending at a higher elevation would get a slight bonus (perhaps 5%).
-Also, there could perhaps be "cliffs" between certain tiles, which would make it impossible to move onto that tile from that direction. Roads also wouldn't connect. Cliffs could also exist along the coastline, preventing naval landings. Cities on cliffs, however, wouldn't be able to build harbors.
-Canyons could also run between some tiles - they would be impassable until late in the game when you can build bridges across them.
-Cliffs and canyons may be too specific for some but I think it would add a little bit more strategy to the game without over-complicating it.

Diplomatic options:
-3 levels of border control (closed, open to non-combat units, and open to militaries). I know this has been discussed before in detail but it still makes sense.
-Diplomatic dialogue between multiple nations. Diplomacy often involves more than 2 powers. You could perhaps contact multiple nations to formulate a peace deal in a large war, for example, or in the reverse, to mutually declare war or enact trade embargoes. A civilization confronted with a demand from more than 1 nation at once would increase the chances of that nation obliging.
-There should be the ability for limited combat to occur without war occurring. Maybe a border skirmish could occur between 2 powers. It would increase tensions, and MAY lead to war, but wouldn't necessarily.
-United Nations peacekeeping missions. I've seen this discussed before, but I think it has some potential.
-I don't think every nation should have to join the U.N. Also, you should be able to violate U.N. resolutions, although it may result in expulsion from the U.N. and could also cause the member nations of the U.N. to unite against you.

Those are the major things I have for now, although more is likely to come.

 

[Camikaze]

-I don't think every nation should have to join the U.N. Also, you should be able to violate U.N. resolutions, although it may result in expulsion from the U.N. and could also cause the member nations of the U.N. to unite against you.

Apologies that I haven't read all of your ideas, firstly, and I know you said in another thread that you don't have any expansions for Civ 4, so not knowing that this has been rectified is understandable.

In Beyond the Sword, the option to 'defy' a resolution was also available, although it came with an unhappiness penalty. So defying too much is not advisable, but it is possible to defy.

 

[bob rulz]

Apologies that I haven't read all of your ideas, firstly, and I know you said in another thread that you don't have any expansions for Civ 4, so not knowing that this has been rectified is understandable.

In Beyond the Sword, the option to 'defy' a resolution was also available, although it came with an unhappiness penalty. So defying too much is not advisable, but it is possible to defy.

Aah okay, that's cool. I'm definitely glad they added that feature. I am familiar with Civ IV (I played it for about 6-8 months after it came out but it didn't hook me like III did) but I am not completely familiar with the expansions. I've considered re-installing it and buying Beyond the Sword and seeing if enjoy it more.

From the sound of it, however, it does seem as if they could still expand on that feature, such as having the option to leave yourself out of the United Nations completely. In this case you wouldn't incur additional penalties for defying U.N. resolutions, but it would come at the cost of diplomatic relations with all U.N. powers. It wouldn't necessarily increase your reputation with anybody else that decides to not join the U.N. either, since any country that doesn't join the U.N. would likely only be concerned in their own interests.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, that could be a good idea, but the problem would be that no civ in their right mind would join the UN. It wouldn't be like in real life, where there is an incentive to have international co-operation. In Civ, your goal is quite clear; to beat everyone else. Only the Secretary-General of the UN really benefits from being a member.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

How about adding in a new era AFTER the modern era: like a future era? And maybe you could colonize distant planets and stuff. And then the space race victory could be not just reaching Alpha Centauri, but maybe developing the first faster than light engine or something.

Also, it would make sense to allow big enough cities to build multiple things at once, and maybe even assist other cities in construction.

 

[Barbar]

Different clothes during the eras and the palace view as in Civ III.